THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. MOHAMMED SHAKIL AHAMAD

LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. SALEEM S/O MAKBUL AHAMAD AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT AALDUR VILLAGE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABDUL RAZAK, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.09.2021 PASSED IN - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:24221 CRL.A No. 951 of 2022 S.C.No.59/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, CHIKKAMAGALURU THEREBY THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED No.1 WAS ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 504, 324, 383, 427, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2013 passed in S.C. No. 59/2019 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Chikkamagaluru whereunder respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – accused Nos.1 and 3 have been acquitted for offence under Sections 448, 504, 324, 383, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for appellant - State.

3. Facts in brief of the prosecution case is that Sri. Mudabbir Ahmed son of Sri. Shafiq Ahmed, at 10.15 am on

17.04.2016, was standing near his shop and his neighbours, namely, Mohamed Shakil Ahamad (accused - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24221 CRL.A No. 951 of 2022 No. 1) his son Sufion (accused No.2) – juvenile and brother of Mohamed Shakil’s wife Saleem (accused No. 3) came to his shop and made galata and accused No. 1 assaulted him with a stone on his head and caused simple injuries and accused No. 3 assaulted him on his body and accused persons entered the shop, dragged things and caused loss of Rs.800/- and they further threatened with dire consequences. On the said complaint of Sri. Mudabbir Ahmed and Sri. Shafiq Ahmed case came to be registered in crime No. 122/2016 for offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 448, 447, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Investigating Officer after investigation filed charge sheet for offence under Sections 448, 504, 323, 324, 383, 427, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court framed charges for the said offences. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The trial Court recorded the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing arguments on both sides the trial Court formulated points for consideration and after considering the evidence - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:24221 CRL.A No. 951 of 2022 on record passed the impugned judgment of acquittal which is challenged in this appeal.

4. Said case came to be transferred to the trial Court as there was a counter case pending before it in Spl.C. (POCSO) No. 14/2017.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are injured persons and their injury certificates are at Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 and they have been issued by the Doctors P.W.6 and P.W.7. He further submits that P.W.4 and P.W.5 are eye witnesses to the incident and they have specifically stated with regard to the overt acts of the appellant - accused assaulting the injured and causing injuries. They have also identified M.O.1 – stone used by the accused persons to assault the injured. The trial Court ignoring the material evidence harped upon material contradictions. He contends that the prosecution has also examined P.W.8 to P.W.11 who are the Investigating Officers. He submits that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:24221 CRL.A No. 951 of 2022 accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offences charged against them. With this he prayed to allow the appeal.

6. This a counter Spl.C.(POCSO) No. 14/2017 has been tried by the Special Court along with the said case. Said Spl.C.(POCSO) No. 14/2017 came to be disposed of by judgment of acquittal dated 30.08.2021. The complainant preferred appeal against said judgment of acquittal in Crl.A. No. 1582/2022. Today, complainant has filed a memo in the said appeal seeking withdrawal on the ground that the matter is settled between the parties. This Court, taking into consideration said memo, dismissed the said appeal as withdrawn.

7. In the case on hand also the injured – P.W.1 and P.W.2 have signed on the application filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and they have also filed affidavits stating that the matter is now amicably settled and they have no objection to confirm the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Offences for which respondent - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:24221 CRL.A No. 951 of 2022 Nos. 1 and 2 faced trial are all compoundable except offence under Section 324 of IPC.

8. In view of the said compromise entered into between accused Nos. 1 and 3 and the injured – P.W.1 and P.W.2, offence under Sections 448, 504, 323, 427, 502 read with Section 34 of IPC are compounded.

9. So far as offence under Section 324 of IPC is concerned, in view of settlement of the present case and also the counter case, as the parties have yielded to the advise of elders and agreed to lead a peaceful life in the village being residents of the same village and in view of compounding of all other offences, by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., offence under Section 324 of IPC is also required to be compounded.

10. As the parties have settled the matter and all offences are compounded, there is no requirement of proceeding with the appeal preferred by the State. Even if the appeal is proceed with and if accused are held to be - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:24221 CRL.A No. 951 of 2022 guilty, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, all the offences are required to be compounded.

11. In view of the above, the appeal preferred by the State is disposed off as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – accused Nos. 1 and 3 have compromised the matter with P.W.1 and P.W.2 – injured. Sd/- JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62